From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Sisemore

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, Oakland Division
Aug 13, 2014
14-CR-70886-MAG (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2014)

Opinion

          MELINDA HAAG, United States Attorney, J. DOUGLAS WILSON, Chief, Criminal Division, KATIE BURROUGHS MEDEARIS, Assistant United States Attorney, Oakland, California, Attorneys for United States of America.

          ANGELA MILELLA HANSEN, Counsel for Defendant FIL GUITRON, III.

          JULIA MEZHINSKY JAYNE, Counsel for Defendant RYAN SISEMORE.

          ADAM PENNELLA, Counsel for Defendant OSCAR VARGAS.

          SCOTT ALAN SUGARMAN, Counsel for Defendant RONNIE TURNER.

          KENNETH HOWARD WINE, Counsel for Defendant VICTOR EASLEY.


          STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT AND RULE 5.1 FROM AUGUST 14, 2014 TO OCTOBER 7, 2014 FOR ALL DEFENDANTS

          KANDIS WESTMORE, Magistrate Judge.

         STIPULATION

         Defendants Ryan Allen Sisemore, Victor Easley, Oscar Vargas, Ronnie Richard Turner, and Fil Filimon Guitron III (collectively, the "Defendants") were charged by complaint in the above-referenced matter in the Northern District of California with conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, to wit: heroin. Defendants are (or soon will be) placed in residential drug treatment programs the Eastern or Northern Districts of California pursuant to court orders. Over the past month, the Government has produced significant discovery related to numerous drug deals and will produce additional discovery in the form of audio-video recordings in accordance with an agreed-upon stipulation and anticipated, related protective order. Given the recent production and volume of discovery, as well as the difficulty in meeting with clients placed in residential treatment facilities across two districts, the parties hereby request that the preliminary hearing date in this matter be moved from August 14, 2014 to October 7, 2014. The parties make this request time to allow reasonable time for the effective preparation of counsel, as well as time to allow the parties to confer and determine whether a pre-indictment resolution is possible. For the reasons stated, the parties believe that good cause exists to exclude and waive time under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(c) and (d), taking into account the public interest in the prompt disposition of a criminal case and Defendants' consent.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

         [PROPOSED] ORDER

         For the reasons stated by the parties, the Court finds that the aforementioned request is supported by good cause and made with the consent of Defendants. Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 5.1(c) and (d). The Court therefore finds that an exclusion of time between August 14, 2014 and October 7, 2014 is merited under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 5.1(c) and (d) and moves the date of the preliminary hearing to October 7, 2014.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Sisemore

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, Oakland Division
Aug 13, 2014
14-CR-70886-MAG (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2014)
Case details for

United States v. Sisemore

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RYAN ALLEN SISEMORE, a/k/a Ryan…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, Oakland Division

Date published: Aug 13, 2014

Citations

14-CR-70886-MAG (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2014)